An Ignored Contradiction between the Merneptah Stele and Archaeological Data

According
to archaeological research, the origin of the people of Israel is
associated with the appearance of hundreds of agricultural villages
that began to appear in the central hill country only in the 1100s.
The Merneptah Stele, however, documents the existence of Israel in
1209 BC. The presence of this people group before they left any
known archaeological remains is a significant and ignored fact in
studies today.

By Todd Bolen
Bibleplaces.com
August 2010

This brief essay is
intended to highlight a contradiction between two well-established
facts related to the origin of the people of Israel in the land of
Canaan. These conclusions have held scholarly consensus for decades,
but the obvious conflict between them is ignored or the facts are
“adjusted” in order to make the discrepancy less obvious.
The disparity between the textual and archaeological sources has
significant implications for the consensus view on the origin of
Israel.

Archaeological
surveys and excavations over the last fifty years have revealed a
population explosion in the hill country of Canaan beginning in the
12th century BC. In his standard archaeological survey, Mazar states
that “the process began in the early twelfth century B.C.E. in
the central hill country and to some extent in Transjordan and the
northern Negev.”1
Stager comments on the “extraordinary increase in population
in Iron I” with the assessment that “there must have been
a major influx of people into the highlands in the twelfth and
eleventh centuries BCE.”2
Rainey and Notley write that “the language and religion of the
early Israelites evidently originated in Transjordan and were brought
to Cisjordan by the pastoralists migrating in the twelfth century
BCE.”3
The settlement process is described by Callaway and Miller: “During
the first two centuries of the Iron Age (beginning in about 1200
B.C.E.), some two or three hundred small settlements were planted in
the more or less empty hill country of central Palestine.”4
Finkelstein has carefully considered the dating for this new
movement, stating that “the data for assigning the beginning of
Israelite Settlement to the 13th century are therefore few and
inconclusive.”5
Thus he can conclude that “there is almost no archaeological
support for dating the beginning of Israelite Settlement earlier than
the 12th century BCE.”6
Scholars are in general agreement that beginning in the 12th
century, hundreds of small agricultural settlements were founded and
these should be associated with the people later known as the
Israelites.

The Merneptah Stele,
discovered long before archaeological work in the central hill
country had ever commenced, names the people of Israel as one of
Egypt’s enemies during the reign of Merneptah (1213-1203).
While we could wish that more information about Israel was recorded
in this, several points are clear.7
First, Israel is listed among the defeated enemies of Egypt.
Second, Israel is recorded not as a city but as a people group.
Thus, in approximately 1209 BC, a group of people existed who were
known to Egypt as “Israel.” They must have been
considerable in size and somewhat formidable or they would not have
warranted mention by Merneptah.8
His claim concerning Israel that “his seed is not” is an
obvious exaggeration, but such a boast is more impressive if he is
describing a larger enemy.

The Merneptah Stele

To summarize thus
far, archaeological evidence indicates that the people of Israel
appeared in the central hill country in a complex process that began
not before 1200 BC. The Merneptah Stele witnesses a significant
population group that was well established by 1209. The obvious
question is, where in the archaeological record are the Israelites
that Merneptah fought?

Some, like Dever,
are aware of this disparity, but they do not address the issue.
Instead, the preferred approach is to act as if there is no
discrepancy by stating, without supporting evidence, that Israel must
have started to settle down in the late 13th century. Thus Dever can
write in an article published recently at The
Bible and Interpretation, “What few biblical
scholars seem to realize is that it is archaeology that bridges the
gap. We have a complete and continuous archaeological record from
the late thirteenth through the early sixth century, with not even a
generation missing.”9
Dever even contrasts in one place “Canaanite” Late
Bronze 13th century with “Israelite” 11th century.10
Is it legitimate for Dever to speak of “the 13th-12th century
B.C. [Israelite] villages recently brought to light by archaeology”?11
He gives no evidence for 13th century villages, only stating that
whereas Finkelstein dates the initial settlement to the late 12th and
11th centuries, “I believe that it began in the 13th century
B.C.”12
Dever’s faith is apparently based on the Merneptah Stele,
despite the lack of evidence from archaeology.

Even if we permit
Dever and others to arbitrarily slide the initial date of the
agricultural villages backward from the beginning of Iron I to the
end of the Late Bronze II, the problem is not resolved. The hundreds
of agricultural villages did not pop up overnight, but were the
result of a lengthy and complex process that took place at different
times and rates throughout the land of Canaan.13
The similarity of material culture between the Canaanite cities and
the (assumed) Israelite agricultural villages is indisputable and
probably “resulted from living in proximity with each other and
from patterns of marriages and mutual support over time.”14
Halpern writes that it was during this period of close contact that
Israel gradually assumed its identity. “Over the course of the
13th and 12th centuries, an ethnic consciousness and solidarity
dawned on this Israel.”15

The fact is the
Merneptah Stele is an inconvenient truth, coming before the process
that scholars assume led to Israelite consciousness and solidarity.
A people known as Israel was established, recognized, and
sufficiently organized to be opposed by Egypt before archaeologists
say they began to appear.16
Although there is a mere ten years between the Merneptah Stele and
the beginning of the 12th century, the important point is that Israel
is an established people group in the Merneptah Stele, whereas
the highland settlement movement only commenced in the
beginning of the 12th century.

Mazar admits this
point in his statement that “archaeologists have not succeeded
in uncovering remains of this initial stage” of Israelite
settlement.17
Since current archaeological studies are unaware of Israel’s
documented presence even in 1209, they are not a reliable source for
informing us about Israel’s existence before this time.

6
Ibid., 353. He says “almost” because of two scarabs
from Mount Ebal which “constitute the single, direct, definite
piece of archaeological evidence for the existence of an Israelite
Settlement site as early as the late 13th century BCE” (321).

16
I find it ironic that Dever (Early Israelites, 204) can ask,
“Does Finkelstein’s progressive downplaying of the
Merneptah data have anything to do with its being inconvenient for
his theory of anonymous hill country settlers?” But the data
is no more convenient for Dever, though he does not acknowledge it.